2023 (5) TMI 1316 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Rules Additional Commissioner Lacked Jurisdiction for Suo Motu Revision Under Odisha Value Added Tax Act.

The HC determined that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) lacked jurisdiction to conduct a suo motu revision under the Odisha Value Added ... Suo motu revision - jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax - limitation of revisional power by administrative notification - quashing of orders passed without jurisdiction - annulment of consequential appellate orderSuo motu revision - jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax - limitation of revisional power by administrative notification - Validity of the suo motu revision initiated by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) against the order of the Sales Tax Officer, Sambalpur II Circle. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) lacked authority to initiate a suo motu revision of the assessment order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The Revenue conceded that, in view of the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Odisha notification dated 5-6-2018, the Additional Commissioner no longer possessed power to make suo motu revisions under section 79(1) of the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004. The Court relied on its earlier decision in M/s. Maharana Supply & Co. (paragraph-14) which held that the Additional Commissioner could exercise suo motu revisional power only in circumstances specified by the notification, and where the order under revision had been passed by specified authorities; an order passed by the STO was not within the Additional Commissioner's suo motu revisional competence. Applying that reasoning, the suo motu revisional order dated 22-6-2017 was held to be beyond jurisdiction and therefore unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6, 7]The suo motu revisional order dated 22-6-2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) is quashed for lack of jurisdiction.Quashing of orders passed without jurisdiction - annulment of consequential appellate order - Sustainability of the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST in appeal against the impugned suo motu revisional order. - HELD THAT: - Since the foundational revisional order was quashed as being without jurisdiction, the Commissioner of CT & GST's appellate order which upheld or proceeded from that revisional order could not stand. The Court consequently held that the appellate order dated 6-3-2019 was vitiated by the vice in the revisional proceedings and therefore liable to be set aside. [Paras 7]The order dated 6-3-2019 passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST in appeal is quashed as consequential on the invalid revisional order.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed: the suo motu revisional order dated 22-6-2017 is quashed for want of jurisdiction and, consequently, the appellate order dated 6-3-2019 is also quashed; the petition stands disposed of. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) to make a suo motu revision under the Odisha Value Added Tax Act, 2004, and the legality of the revisional order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) and the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST.Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal):The petitioner sought to quash the revisional order dated 22-6-2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) and the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST dated 6-3-2019. The petitioner's counsel contended that the revisional order was without jurisdiction as no suo motu revision can be made by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. The counsel relied on a previous judgment of the Court to support this argument. The Standing Counsel for Revenue also conceded that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) lacked the power to make a suo motu revision under the relevant notification.Court's Decision:After considering the arguments and reviewing the provisions of the law, the Court found that the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax (Appeal) did not have the authority to make a suo motu revision against the order passed by the Sales Tax Officer. Referring to a previous case, the Court highlighted that the Additional Commissioner was not functioning within the scope of his jurisdiction when making the revisional order. Consequently, the Court held that the revisional order and the subsequent order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST could not be sustained in the eye of law and quashed both orders.Conclusion:In conclusion, the Court quashed the revisional order dated 22-6-2017 and the order passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST dated 6-3-2019. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.